Karnail Singh v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-2861-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2861-2022 Reserved on : 28.01.2022 Pronounced on : February 02, 2022 Karnail Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, AAG, Punjab.
(Through Video Conferencing) **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 16.03.2021 Singh Bhagwantpur, District Rupnagar.
22 of NDPS Act, 1985.
1.
The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest has come up before this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail for possessing a commercial quantity of 380 intoxicating injection Ampoales (5 ml. each) containing Buprenorphine Hydrocloride, in violation of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
2.
In paragraph 13 of the petition, it is declared that the accused has no criminal history.
3.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 4.
While opposing the bail, the contention on behalf of the State is that drug menace is rapidly increasing.
REASONING:
5.
Even as per State's contention, an analysis of the FSL report prima facie leads to assessment that the quantity of the contraband is commercial. The MANPREET SINGH 2022.02.02 12:52 I attest to the accuracy of this order.
CRM-M-2861-2022 2 petitioner has not stated anything to discharge the burden put by the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act. The stand, that the accused is in custody for sufficient time is also not a legal ground to overcome the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act, at this stage.
6.
Petitioner has not at all offered any explanation to rebut the presumption and shift the burden placed by the legislature on the accused under S. 37 of the NDPS Act. Thus, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for bail.
7. In the present case, since the alleged quantity of the contraband recovered from the main accused falls in commercial quantity, the burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which he has failed to do. 8.
Given above, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. 9.
Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE February 02 , 2022 Manpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes Whether reportable :
No.
MANPREET SINGH 2022.02.02 12:52 I attest to the accuracy of this order.